coboardhead observed: "folks view global warming more like a religion, than a science. No matter what data is presented by scientists, people just won't change their opinion. This was found to be true of "believers" and "non-believers" in his study."

The nattering right has used this technique wholesale. It is actually possible to measure the effects of economic policies--do tax cuts increase jobs and so forth--by establishing metrics, adjusting for other factors, and looking at the results. Or we can simply repeat the endless drivel of the Laffer curve, egged on by Fox. In any item of faith, one needs not examine evidence. Seen it here?

....and then, of course, there are those who act purely out of self interest in this arena.

"Now he tells us. Al Gore says his support for corn-based ethanol subsidies while serving as vice president was a mistake that had more to do with his desire to cultivate farm votes in the 2000 presidential election than with what was good for the environment."

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." - Al Gore to Sam Donaldson

Of course. After all, he insisted that he is justified in overstating the GW threat because it's so important.

IT'S A MATH MODEL PROJECTION, YOU CLOWN, and you deliberately chose the most alarming model of the ten models available. On top of that, your chosen model has been robustly disproved by applying it to data from decades ago; its predictions of today's climate were completely off the charts.

I'm not sure what this venom about Gore has to do with the facts. I long thought he and his wife were kind of fatuous southern politicians, but I do admire him for ceding the election to Bush after he won the popular vote.

Isobars tries to make a point that concerns about global warming are based only on doomsday projections. There is a grain of truth to that; the original literature on global warming was very alarmist and did rely on extreme forecasts. But Iso and other deniers conveniently ignore the actual science, which shows not merely that sea level is rising, but that there is an acceleration in the rate of rise. This trend has reached the point where insurers, if not Republicans and Tri-Cities residents, are noticing. Here from insurancejournal.com.

Quote:

A new study, published in the journal Science, concludes that the massive Greenland ice sheets are losing mass more rapidly than previous studies had indicated.

From 2006 research results:

Quote:

Research by Australian climate scientists has shown that global sea level has been rising at an increasing rate over the past 130 years. Using information from tide gauges and measurements from satellites, Dr John Church and Dr Neil White estimated changes in global mean sea levels since 1870.
Their work, published in the science journal Geophysical Research Letters (6 January), indicates an acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise that had not been detected previously.
‘Although predicted by models, this is the first time a 20th century acceleration has actually been detected,’ Dr Church says. ‘Our research provides added confidence in sea-level rise projections published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report.
‘If the acceleration over the past 130 year period continues, we would expect sea level to be 280-340mm above its 1990 levels by 2100. This is consistent with the projections in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report.’

Sometimes old stuff should be revived. I read about this article in Terry Tamminen's book "Lives per Gallon.", which estimates an annual subsidy of $100 billion a year. Think the TEA-Party will identify eliminating those subsidies as a budget-balancing measure? Here is the press release from before the current oil wars:

Quote:

"Real Price Of Gasoline" Report Reveals Actual Cost of Gas to Consumers Is as High as $15.14 per Gallon

11/16/1998

STUDY RELEASED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (CTA) DETAILS OVER $1.69 TRILLION IN SOCIAL COSTS AND GOVERNMENT 'WELFARE' FOR GAS INDUSTRY

MIDDLE EAST TENSIONS AND GLOBAL WARMING MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO MASSIVE INCREASE IN THE REAL COST OF GAS

Washington D.C. -- A report released today by the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) calculates that the actual cost of a gallon of gas to the American consumer could be as high as $15.14. The report "The Real Price of Gas" identifies and quantifies the many external costs of using gas that consumers pay indirectly by way of taxes, insurance costs and retail prices in other sectors. Established in 1994, the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA), is a Washington-based research organization that analyzes how technology affects society.

The CTA study examines more than 40 separate cost factors associated with gasoline production and consumption. These include subsidies for the petroleum industry such as the percentage depletion allowance; tax-funded programs that directly subsidize oil production and consumption, like government-sponsored R&D for the oil industry; the costs of protecting oil supplies, shipments and motor vehicle usage, including military expenditures for protecting the Middle East and other oil rich regions; and environmental, health and social costs including those for global warming. Together these subsidies for gas paid by consumers total up to $1.68 trillion per year.

The Report will be released at a news conference today, Tuesday, November 17, 1998, at 10 a.m. The conference will be held at the offices of the Communications Consortium at 1200 New York Avenue, N.W. (AAAS Building, 1 block from Metro Center), Second Floor, Revelle Conference Room. Scheduled panelists include Andrew Kimbrell, and Joseph Mendelson of CTA, Ann Mesnikoff of the Sierra Club and Gawain Kripke of Friends of the Earth.

According to CTA Director Andrew Kimbrell, "The real price of gas has been hidden from the consumer for far too long. Some of these costs including those associated with military actions in the Middle East and global warming could skyrocket in the coming years. Once the public understands how much they are really paying for gas we should see a tremendous increase in political pressure for alternatives."

The article included an interesting point regarding scientists and their admitted political party. 6% Republican and 55% Democrat. Who knows about the credibility of the poll results, but the apparent disparity that exists is notable nonetheless.

Heaven forbid, what would isobars say about that?

Just for the fun of it, you also might want to read the extended commentary from readers. This sort of dialog is going on in response to most all articles, opinion and editorials these days. It's definitely an arena of sorts, with a healthy cast of recurring characters of all types.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum